The MT-BC Credential

This blog is in response to discussion points concerning the MT-BC Certification raised in our facebook group The Global Music Therapy Project.

Introduction:

The MT-BC stands for "Music Therapist - Board Certified" awarded by the Certification Board for Music Therapists after an individual completes
1. an accredited training program in the United States in music therapy,
2. a 1040 hour internship at an American Music Therapy Association (AMTA)-recognized site, and
3.succeeds in the national board-certification exam and maintains such status.

My understanding of the two comments posted:

A. Music therapy is provision of services by a trained professional only. There is some evidence to suggest that efficacy is greater when music therapy is provided by a trained therapist.
B. MT-BCs don't have the right to the term music therapy, and hence are in no position to stipulate what is music therapy and what is not. Additionally, there are no state or federal laws that regulate the practice of music therapy.

My response:

I am not sure I am the most qualified person to address these interesting comments, but having dual qualifications as a physician and a board-certified music therapist, I do have some insight into clinical process. I dont think the AMTA's definition of music therapy is indicative of control, but one of educating the public concerning the potential benefits of music therapy and creating the premise for its provision as a professional service. It makes total sense for health care service delivery to warrant accountability, standards of clinical practice and ethical decision-making, especially when one charges money for potentially changing health outcomes or indicators. No one has control (or trademarked rights) over the term doctor, medicine, social work, psychotherapy, or yes, even music therapy. I would only hope that as a patient, one does not seek assistance indiscriminately from an untrained service provider, a cause for potential harm and risk.

In response to the MT-BC being a meaningless certification, I would simply refer anyone to fully understand the training, accreditation and credentialing processes in place prior to making a naïve and ignorant assumption such as this one. There are many online resources that can provide this information. Secondly, while I don’t have a textbook definition of “accountability”, a good dictionary should be able to provide this. I do think there is a strong case for ethics in the business of health service delivery, which makes such a credential far more meaningful for physicians, employers, insurance companies, educators, students, allied healthcare providers and of course, the millions of patients whose lives are measurably impacted as a result. The efforts in establishing the MT-BC are reflective of progress being made toward procuring a platform for federal and/or state-recognized qualifications for the ethical clinical practice of music therapy and to increase accountability, both to ultimately result in better patient care.

Why is this a problem?

Some real life examples of abuse include referring to oneself as a trained music therapist after attending a 3-day workshop conducted by a visiting foreign expert, scaling the sale of recorded compact discs claiming that music can cure disease (and therefore occluding the role of the therapeutic relationship), assigning the area of focus in a thesis dissertation to replace a broader and related subject area (doctoral program in psychology where the thesis was the exploration of music therapy) or self-assigning letters that have no realizable affiliation to a credentialing body (such as using initials like MT after one's name). There are clear-cut answers to some of these, while others are ethical dilemmas, especially in countries that lack training programs or credentialing societies.

Regardless, music does not equal music therapy.

For more information, please visit:
Certification Board of Music Therapists
American Music Therapy Association